Are Mormons' Christians?

[PD1]

PD1, I am reminded of Col 2:8. Thanks for sharing.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

And Paul's quote has what to do with what you've been asked to comment on?

Its a mystery !.

Yet, God is not a mystery when it comes to his aseity. Why? Because he has revealed that he has no needs. So, if he has no needs, and is perfect in his being, then why do the LDS state just the opposite, while at the same time assert his aseity? To me the LDS are either confused as to who God really is, and do not know him, are as Paul McNabb stated, thoughtless, theologically speaking, when it comes to issues like this one, and therefore make conflicting statements on the subject, or they suffer from what someone else was speaking about in another thread, cognitive dissonance.

Personally, I believe that the LDS espouse a God created in the image of man, complete with all the limitations. It is not that they desire to worship an idol, but, when analyzed, that is exactly what the LDS God is. And instead of really wrestling with their statements about God, and seeking to understand what scripture reveals about him, it seems that in a cognitive dissonant way, they just brush it all aside, assuming that everything is just peachy. There are no contradictions, because they refuse to look at them. Sorry, but that approach to theology is certainly not pleasing to God, but is reminiscent of the kind of idolatry that relatively denigrates the being of God, whereby he is assumed to be no different, essentially, than the creature that he brought into existence.

[PD1]

Perhaps you aught to check your tanslation PD1. Because its not teaching ex nihilo. Which was a later greco/platonic "inovation". For you see... it was the greeks and plato who came up with creation ex nihilo. Not the Bible.

And you know how to translate the Greek text? Then please parse egeneto in John 1:3, and then cite me a couple of Greek grammars and lexicons that the LDS have produced to support their "weak" translation. From my side of the fence, here's what Daniel Wallace has to say from his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics book:

1st... Did you mistakenly think that "Young" was Brigman Young?

I got this from Bible Gateway.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index....01:3&version=15

The "Weak" translation that you think the LDS have produced wasn't produced by the LDS at all, but by Bible Scholars. Theres no doubt that God was primordial mover. But the rock/ice ball called earth already existed, and God moved upon the face of the water and brought forth life. The Chaotic matter already existed.

[YH8]

Perhaps you aught to check your tanslation PD1. Because its not teaching ex nihilo. Which was a later greco/platonic "inovation". For you see... it was the greeks and plato who came up with creation ex nihilo. Not the Bible.

And you know how to translate the Greek text? Then please parse egeneto in John 1:3, and then cite me a couple of Greek grammars and lexicons that the LDS have produced to support their "weak" translation. From my side of the fence, here's what Daniel Wallace has to say from his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics book:

1st... Did you mistakenly think that "Young" was Brigman Young?

I got this from Bible Gateway.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index....01:3&version=15

The "Weak" translation that you think the LDS have produced wasn't produced by the LDS at all, but by Bible Scholars. Theres no doubt that God was primordial mover. But the rock/ice ball called earth already existed, and God moved upon the face of the water and brought forth life. The Chaotic matter already existed.

Z, I asked for your translation of the Greek text, as you worked your way through the grammar and syntax. Where is it? In fact, what kind of speech is being used in John 1:3b, which led to the writer writing the text in manner that he did? If you cannot give those things to me, then don't being making judgments on what you think is either a "weak" or acceptable translation, because you obviously do not know what you're talking about.

[Teancum]

PD1,

I believe there is a shift in LDS thoughts about God. I believe it is moving more towards what the Bible and BoM has to say rather then what the KFD says as well as the specualtive comments that came in the 19th century.

I believe that we may be moving towards a theology that is emodied inthe Lectures on Faith, which I personally like very well and would like to see them back in the D&C. Interestingly Bruce R. McConkie liked the Lectures quite well as did his father in law JFS. I believe that Elder McConkie wanted to see them reinstated to the D&C.

Teancum

[Zakuska]

Personally, I believe that the LDS espouse a God created in the image of man, complete with all the limitations.

And this coming from a man who thinks God cannot make a rock bigger than he can lift. Cannot go against his own nature. Cannot lie. Cannot die. Cannot appear to man.

If anyone is placing limits on God that would be you PD1.

I gave you my interpretation.

God is the prime mover.

It says nothing about God magically snapping his fingers (not that he could in a Christian paradigm anyways) and *poof*... Atoms and molecules mysteriously pop into existance.

Life came into existance from pre-existing chaotic matter. Just ask Peter.

[T-Shirt]

Z, I asked for your translation of the Greek text, as you worked your way through the grammar and syntax. Where is it? In fact, what kind of speech is being used in John 1:3b, which led to the writer writing the text in manner that he did? If you cannot give those things to me, then don't being making judgments on what you think is either a "weak" or acceptable translation, because you obviously do not know what you're talking about.

My goodness, your condescending and arrogant attitude continues to grow. I tried to come into this discussion giving you the benefit of the doubt, which has since vanished. It has become rather apparent that your intentions here are not to discuss things, but to display your superior knowledge and to denegrate anyone who disagrees with you and to avoid answering any questions which would show your inability to maintain any sense of logic in your analysis.

That being said, I suppose further comment on my part would be pointless, as you seem to have no interest in differing opinions, nevertheless, as I am bordering on insane, I will respond any way.

As you pointed out, "ginomai" would be correctly translated as "come to exist" which would be consistant with all 202 other chapters which use the word (some multiple times). But none of them would be consistant with the idea of coming into existance out of nothing. In fact in several places, we exactly the opposite idea. In John 1:15

15

[PD1]

So . . . Zakuska has to translate all Biblical text before s/he can have an opinion on it?

Pardon me, but Z was not giving an opinion about the biblical text itself, but was criticizing my translation of the text (Jn. 1:3). Now, if Z cannot actually translate himself/herself beyond groping in Strong's, or copying and pasting something from a pet Internet cite, then you're right, s/he is not qualified to offer a critical opinion of someone else.

Have you done this?

Indeed, I have. Have you? If so, then please give me your translation of the Greek text of John 1:3. Please include answers to the very same questions that were asked of Z.

It sounds like you aren't interested in an opinion unless it is either yours or at least agrees with yours.

No, it's that I'm not interested in opinions based in hypocrisy and personal prejudice, because then the criticism has nothing to do with actually addressing the text.

You are painting yourself into a pretty tight corner with all of this.

The LDS, with exception of maybe one or two persons, keep avoiding the discussion and questions repeatedly, and then offer up the kinds of comments that Z has, and you think I'm the one doing the painting? It would seem to me that the LDS have already painted themselves into a corner the day they accepted what Joseph Smith had to say is true about the person of God.

Again, have you ever used another username on this website?

[PD1]

Teancum

PD1,

I believe there is a shift in LDS thoughts about God.  I believe it is moving more towards what the Bible and BoM  has to say rather then what the KFD says as well as the specualtive comments that came in the 19th century.

If that is the case, then why do the LDS have such great difficulty in discussing this topic?

I believe that we may be moving towards a theology that is emodied inthe Lectures on Faith, which I personally like very well and would like to see them back in the D&C.  Interestingly Bruce R. McConkie liked the Lectures quite well as did his father in law JFS.  I believe that Elder McConkie wanted to see them reinstated to the D&C.

Once again, if that is the case, then God the Father is going to be without a body, there are only going to be two persons in the godhead, and the Holy Spirit is only going to be the mind of God, and not a person at all. Are you sure that the LDS are headed in that direction? Furthermore, although that view is somewhat closer to what scripture has to say about God the Father, overall, it is still an erroneous view of God (Father, Son, and Spirit), and the LDS will be right back in the same boat when it comes to discussing him, meaning, they won't be able to without all kinds of endless contradictions.

[PD1]

I gave you my interpretation.

I didn't ask for an interpretation. I asked for your translation. Are you going to give one or not? My assumption is that you haven't a clue about what it means to translate. Am I right?

[YH8]

1) Pardon me, but Z was not giving an opinion about the biblical text itself, but was criticizing my translation of the text (Jn. 1:3). Now, if Z cannot actually translate himself/herself beyond groping in Strong's, or copying and pasting something from a pet Internet cite, then you're right, s/he is not qualified to offer a critical opinion of someone else.

2) Indeed, I have. Have you? If so, then please give me your translation of the Greek text of John 1:3. Please include answers to the very same questions that were asked of Z.

3)

Again, have you ever used another username on this website?

[YH8]

1) I didn't ask for an interpretation. I asked for your translation.

2) Are you going to give one or not? My assumption is that you haven't a clue about what it means to translate. Am I right?

1) translation and interpretation are synonymous.

[ ] agree

[ ] disagree

2) I'm guessing you think a translation is not an interpretation.

[YH8]

PD1/?,

If I only speak English, should I never attempt to communicate with someone who does not speak English? By your logic, having a translator mediate the conversation is no good, right?

[Teancum]

Once again, if that is the case, then God the Father is going to be without a body, there are only going to be two persons in the godhead, and the Holy Spirit is only going to be the mind of God, and not a person at all.  Are you sure that the LDS are headed in that direction?

I would say yes accepting the non personage status of the HG and viewing the Father as a spirit only.

What is your view of the Lectures on Faith?

Teancum

[PD1]

Z, I asked for your translation of the Greek text, as you worked your way through the grammar and syntax.  Where is it?  In fact, what kind of speech is being used in John 1:3b, which led to the writer writing the text in manner that he did?  If you cannot give those things to me, then don't being making judgments on what you think is either a "weak" or acceptable translation, because you obviously do not know what you're talking about.

My goodness, your condescending and arrogant attitude continues to grow. I tried to come into this discussion giving you the benefit of the doubt, which has since vanished. It has become rather apparent that your intentions here are not to discuss things, but to display your superior knowledge and to denegrate anyone who disagrees with you and to avoid answering any questions which would show your inability to maintain any sense of logic in your analysis.

That being said, I suppose further comment on my part would be pointless, as you seem to have no interest in differing opinions, nevertheless, as I am bordering on insane, I will respond any way.

As you pointed out, "ginomai" would be correctly translated as "come to exist" which would be consistant with all 202 other chapters which use the word (some multiple times). But none of them would be consistant with the idea of coming into existance out of nothing. In fact in several places, we exactly the opposite idea. In John 1:15

15

[YH8]

I wish you well.

You do? Probably only if he/we come around to your way of thinking, right? In fact, that is what your well wishes are, right? Would be comfortable if we chose to not get in line with your thinking? Are you ok with people not choosing your way? I mean really? For those that resist, should they be sent to God, so God can sort them out, rather than them causing trouble around here? Do people choose to be saved? Or has God decided who he will save? If God wants to save me, does that mean I have to be saved? While I don't really exepct you to provide answers, hopefully you'll at least think about these questions.

Also, what username(s) have you gone by on this website?

[PD1]

1) Spare me.

2) You've translated the whole Bible? How are we supposed to trust your translation? Sounds like you don't like Strong's too much.

3) How about a real answer? Who are you?

Why don't you just tell us who you are? Since you are telling us how it is, why not tell us who you are? Why hiding? It might actually help, I'm guessing the longer you go on telling us how it is while hiding your true identity, you'll lose more and more credibility and/or people paying attention to you. It is pretty clear you have been around here before under other username(s). I'm guessing it'll do more damage for us to know who you are than it will help, though.

1) You haven't spared me, why should I spare you?

2) I could if given enough time. Lets just say that what I translate is a whole lot truer to the biblical text than anything Joseph Smith ever produce. And Strong's is for novices and those who like playing linguistic games in ignorance.

3) Fred Flintstone & Barney Rubble. Didn't you read my last reply?

4) And I could care less whether you think I have credibility or not. Anyone reading these posts, with any amount of objectivity, can tell who it is that is sincerely trying to discuss the topic, and those whose agenda it is to avoid it. And that is more damaging to the LDS cause than whether or not I tell that my name is

[PD1]

1) I didn't ask for an interpretation.  I asked for your translation. 

2) Are you going to give one or not?  My assumption is that you haven't a clue about what it means to translate.  Am I right?

1) translation and interpretation are synonymous.

[ ] agree

[ ] disagree

2) I'm guessing you think a translation is not an interpretation.

1) Disagree

2) For once I actually agree with you.

[PD1]

PD1/?,

If I only speak English, should I never attempt to communicate with someone who does not speak English? By your logic, having a translator mediate the conversation is no good, right?

In the famous words of an LDS on this board, "give it a rest."

On the other hand, I'll read your translation of John 1:3, or if you want to discuss God's aseity, and how the LDS God lacks it, I'll be more than willing to read what you have to say.

[YH8]

1) And I could care less whether you think I have credibility or not. 

2) Anyone reading these posts, with any amount of objectivity, can tell who it is that is sincerely trying to discuss the topic, and those whose agenda it is to avoid it.

1) Now, there's a surprise. You also don't care what I or any LDS think about anything. You care about telling us what we think and what we should think. I thought it was our church leaders that did that?

2) Of course - those who agree with you are objective and those who don't are lacking in so many areas. We are lucky you deign to grace us with your presence and knowledge.

Edit: Oops. What are your other username(s)?

[YH8]

PD1,

Are you God? Otherwise translation is an interpretation, unless you are the person who said what ever is being translated and then still it is debateably an interpretation when rendered into another language.

You've got to back down from your rigid approach to things.

What other username(s) have you gone by on this website?

[Tanyan]

Survey says ????????????.

[T-Shirt]

TS, don't patronize me.

Get a grip. I came into this conversation in a very even tone, trying to get a better understanding of what you believe and you have consistantly refused to answer any of my questions. You have repeatedly looked down your nose at others and damanded that LDS agree with your concept of LDS thought and then when they didn't agree you stomped your feet and said they were wrong about their own belief and then mysteriously claimed victory all the while dancing around questions, claiming to have answered them while not doing so. And you accuse me of patronizing you.

For as has already been proven, I'm willing to discuss this topic with those whose main focus is the subject.

You have proven nothing of the sort. Besidess that, you did not start this thread and the topic being addressed now isn't even the topic of the thread, yet you act as though you are the only one who has the right to ask questions and determine the direction of the discussion.

I'm not the subject, though.

I have not claimed that you are, but you seen to be trying very hard to kake it about you.

And so far, only a couple, not including yourself, have been willing to do that.

You are kidding, right?

Furthermore, if someone is asked to back-up their criticisms with something a bit more substantive than personal "opinion," and they cannot do it, whose fault is it for them being exposed for something that they know nothing about?  Me or them?

You seem to be suffering from a serious superiority complex. Do a Google search on "ginomai" and you will get a miriad of opinions on how to translate it. Is it your opinion that if others don't agree with you they simply don't know what they are talking about? What makes your opinion superior to anyone elses?

As for your attempt at dealing with the word ginomai in John 1:3, it is painfully obvious that you know very little, if anything, about translation either.

Actually, I know a fair amount about translation, but I never claimed to speak Greek. But it is still possible to study the topic and have valid and accurate opinions.

And how do I know this?  You didn't start with the actual text itself and translate it, using sound grammatical skill along the way.

It was never my intention to do so.

Instead, you hunted and pecked for verses with the same word used in it, hoping that perchance there is enough shade in usage that might cause one to doubt the translation, and eventually interpretation, of the text really in question. 

You are quite the mind reader, just not a very good one. Are you telling me that it is wrong to look at how the translators have translated a specific word in other cases and how the word was used at other times by the author? If so, then I would say that you don't know what you are doing.

Unfortunately, the only thing you end up accomplishing when "translating" that way is merely reading your preconceived ideas into the translation, instead of allowing the translation to form your ideas.  And that is not a way to translate anything with any degree of integrity.

Nonsense. Can you show me just one time other than John chapter one, where the translation of the word "ginomai" is used in a manner that supports your opinion? Just one should be easy, it is used six or seven hundred times.

The fact of the matter is, John 1:3 is one verse that can be cited with confidence, to establish that God created everything ex nihilo, or "out of nothing."  Literally, the verse could be translated, "All things (panta) through him (di' autou) came to be (egeneto=ami3s-ginomai), and without him (kai choris autou) not one thing came to be (egeneto=ami3s-ginomai, oude hen), which came to be (ho gegonen=pfai3s-ginomai)." 

I think, "came into being" would be better, but I don't mind either one.

And since Z did not have a clue as to what kind of speech John was using when he wrote 1:3b, which further emphasizes what John was conveying, I shall answer the question for him.  John was using what is known as a Pleonasm, or a figure of speech designed to intensify

[1dc]

2) You've translated the whole Bible?  How are we supposed to trust your translation?  Sounds like you don't like Strong's too much.

2) I could if given enough time. Lets just say that what I translate is a whole lot truer to the biblical text than anything Joseph Smith ever produce. And Strong's is for novices and those who like playing linguistic games in ignorance.

4) And I could care less whether you think I have credibility or not. Anyone reading these posts, with any amount of objectivity, can tell who it is that is sincerely trying to discuss the topic, and those whose agenda it is to avoid it. And that is more damaging to the LDS cause than whether or not I tell that my name is

[Golden Tapir]

O.K., I'm gonna say what I think/feel about this:

Right outta the blocks, the LDS start of by suggesting that other churches purpose is to get gain ($), and that they're inspired, more or less, by Satan, the Devil, Baalzebub, or maybe Ron Popiel. Whatever.

Then to make things WORSE (you didn't think it was possible, Right?) along comes BRM and says the Catholics are the G&A mentioned in the scriptures. OOPS! get the hook out for THAT guy!

We don't want the hook to get rusty, so we also use it on PHD.

Christians? Take a close look at how we treat Each Other, let alone others.

maybe Next Year.

(I know; I'm not perfect either)

Heavenly Father's grace extends to ALL.

Christ promised us that Love, Repentance, and Forgiveness will do the job.

Lets spread THAT around for a while, see if anyone pays attention.

[Teancum]

GT,

Your sig line is just hilarious!!

Teancum